Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s housing allocation decision and the bidding process. We found fault with the way the Council communicated with Mr X about the properties he could bid for. This fault caused injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise, re-send its decision to Mr X and explain in writing details of its letting scheme.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision-making on his priority for housing allocation. He says he has been living in property unsuitable for his medical needs and is at risk because he could not evacuate in case of emergency.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
5. Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and these decisions can be challenged, reviewed or appealed.
6. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Equality Act 2010

9. Indirect discrimination may occur when a service provider applies an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice which puts persons sharing a protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage.
10. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

The Council’s Allocation Policy

11. Applicants with a need for adapted accommodation that has been determined by the Council (CE determined need) will be given priority for adapted homes over others in the same priority Band who do not need adaptations.
12. In some cases, properties are advertised with an age restriction where it Is likely that these homes are suitable for an applicant with a disability, providers will permit bids from applicants that have a (CE determined) need for adaptation. For the purposes of assessing a (CE determined) need for adaptation applicants will be asked to supply evidence of their eligibility for certain benefits.
13. Where a house might be better suited to meet the needs of a disabled household but there are no children under 18 in the household, there can be flexibility shown, but the Council will require the evidence of certain benefits and Occupational Therapy reports. In selecting an applicant for an adapted property from the short-list, circumstances of each case will be considered.

What happened

14. The Council manages its social housing allocations through a choice-based letting scheme, called Cheshire Homechoice. I will refer to it as the Council’s letting scheme.
15. Mr X has been living alone in a social housing flat on the first floor. From the end of February 2025 he has been registered with the Council’s letting scheme with the priority banding D.
16. In mid-March Mr X asked for a re-assessment of his application. A week later a member of the Council’s letting scheme asked Mr X to fill in the reassessment form.
17. Mr X sent some medical evidence and his blue badge to the Council’s letting scheme. He contacted it again in the first week of April.
18. Following the review of Mr X’s application, in mid-April the Council’s letting scheme changed its decision on Mr X’s priority banding. It recognised Mr X’s difficulties with stairs and his need to be nearer to his family for support. His application was changed from the priority banding D to C for a medical need to move. The Council’s letting scheme told Mr X of his right to ask for an appeal.
19. At the beginning of May an Occupational Therapist (OT) carried out an assessment of Mr X’s housing needs.
20. Mr X applied again to the Council’s letting scheme in the second week of June. He asked the Council to move him to a sheltered accommodation in a different area of the Council, closer to his family.
21. Nearly two weeks later the OT completed their report. They noted Mr X’s worsening health conditions meant his ability to manage stairs would reduce over time and he was at risk of falls and entrapment in case of fire. The OT stated Mr X would benefit from living on the ground floor, close to amenities and with good public transport to access community and his parents. They also recommended bathroom adaptations.
22. In the fourth week of June Mr X talked to the Council’s letting scheme about his application. He expressed his concern he could not bid on properties marked for people over 55 and those with medical needs. The Council’s letting scheme staff advised that only people who are either over 55 or receiving Personal Independent Payment (PIP) with enhanced mobility component could bid for these properties. Mr X said he had tried to get PIP several times but was not successful. During this call Mr X asked to close his application as he could not bid for properties for over 55 and those with medical needs.
23. Later the same day Mr X complained about the Council’s letting scheme staff with whom he had held a telephone call. Mr X was upset by the lack of empathy and the way he had been treated.
24. The next day the Council’s letting scheme team reopened Mr X’s housing application.
25. Mr X came to us at the end of June, raising the issue of the Council’s decision-making on his priority for housing allocation. Mr X asked that he could bid for bungalows and sheltered accommodation.
26. At the beginning of July 2025 the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It reiterated the information on who was eligible to bid for restricted properties. The Council repeated this in its correspondence with Mr X at the beginning of August.
27. In mid-November 2025 the Council’s letting scheme again told Mr X that applicants under the age of 55 could only bid on bungalows or ground-floor properties if they were receiving PIP with enhanced mobility component. As Mr X was not receiving this benefit, the Council’s letting scheme would not allow him to bid on these types of properties.
28. In its response to my enquiries the Council explained:
• most properties that already contain adaptations are not restricted by the Registered Providers of social housing, so any applicant can place a bid;
• Registered Providers can advertise a property in a way that prioritises applicants who specifically need existing adaptations. The Council’s letting scheme staff made a note on Mr X’s application that any property offered to him needed to have certain adaptations to address his medical needs, therefore he would get priority;
• between April 2025 and 20 February 2026 there were 82 one-bedroom ground floor properties advertised by the Council’s letting scheme which were not restricted to applicants over 55 years old or who had CE determined need;
• there is a right to request a review of any decision about the Council’s letting scheme application.
29. In its response to my draft decision the Council said that Mr X placed five bids for ground floor properties and one bid for a bungalow.

Analysis

30. As explained in paragraph three of this decision we look at whether councils carry out the right process when making their decisions rather than at the merits of these decisions.
31. The Council made two separate decisions about Mr X’s application for social housing:
1. decision on his priority banding;
2. decision on whether he could bid on the properties restricted to applicants who are over 55 or have a CE determined need.
32. When deciding on the priority banding for Mr X’s application the Council followed the correct process. After Mr X had asked for a review of its decision, the Council carried out a review considering all the medical evidence sent and in mid-April issued a changed decision. The Council told Mr X of his appeal rights.
33. Mr X was confused why he could not bid for the restricted properties, which were advertised for people over 55 or with medical needs. The wording of the property adverts did not refer to PIP or include clarification of which medical needs would qualify the applicants to bid for restricted properties. During the telephone call in June 2025, however, the Council’s letting scheme officer explained to Mr X who was considered eligible to bid for the restricted properties and how the level of medical needs would be assessed. The Council reiterated this explanation in its stage one response to Mr X’s complaint from the beginning of July 2025 and in its correspondence with Mr X at the beginning of August and in November.
34. In response to my draft decision the Council explained that after logging into his housing account Mr X could see the properties which were not restricted and would be suitable for his medical needs. Mr X placed five bids for ground floor flats and one bid for a bungalow which was not restricted. This means that Mr X knew that, although he could not bid on the restricted properties, there were other suitable properties for which he could bid.
35. When deciding whether Mr X could bid on the restricted properties the Council failed by:
• delay in responding in writing to Mr X’s request to allow him to bid for the restricted properties. The Council’s letting scheme staff discussed this matter with Mr X in June 2025 but only sent its decision in writing on Mr X’s CE determined need five months later;
• lack of advice on Mr X’s right to ask for a review of the Council’s letting scheme decision.
36. The Council’s failings listed above are fault. They meant that Mr X could not formally challenge the Council’s position on his eligibility to bid for restricted properties as he did not have a decision in writing. Although the Council referred him to its Allocation Scheme, when issuing a decision the Council should have advised him on the means of redress.
37. I did not find the Council had failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010. Through restricting some adapted properties for applicants of certain age and disability the Council ensures that this group has greater chance of getting properties they need. Applicants who need adapted properties but do not fulfil criteria for restricted properties, can also bid for ground floor properties and they get priority over the applicants without an accepted need for adaptations. The Council has considered needs of both groups of applicants.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended;
• re-send its decision on Mr X’s eligibility for restricted properties, telling him of his right to ask for a review;
• provide a written guidance to Mr X with the explanation how the Council’s letting scheme operates, how properties are advertised and how to use the online system, including bidding procedures.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

Back to top

Decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman